Talk:List of known captchalogue codes
Huh, I kinda forgot we had this page. I guess I kind of... went into auto mode when I was link fixing and didn't really take in what the page is, because it's the perfect place to point at this, since if any of my project (linked there) is useful, it'll be useful on this page Misinformation Just a minor notice due to the recent update. I have seen it floating around and finally, just now on the wiki, that AND-combining the juju codes produces the code produces UROBUROS, and that OR-combining the codes produces uroburos. I'm putting it here for quick reference in case others add it again that this is not true. AND-combining them produces the code, OHG1OHGK, and OR-combining them produces ?!wl?!w?. - The Light6 (talk) 13:32, January 6, 2013 (UTC) : My sincerest apologies to The Light6, I was mistaken regarding the conversion of letters to binary (I used ASCII, instead of the code provided by Rose in her GameFAQs wiki). Hope this helps clarify the confusion. Natabbotts (talk) 17:24, January 6, 2013 (UTC) No easter eggs here None of the codes are youtube ids, so don't bother trying. Though I guess now that I've said it, a future one probably will be. Taneth (talk) 02:17, May 24, 2013 (UTC) :I don't know why you would expect that, or expect that to be the case in the future. Given that Homestuck is at the climax I doubt there will be any more captchalogue codes displayed. That being said, even if any were what you are suggesting is impossible because: 1) Captchalogue codes are only 8 characters long, youtube ids have a varying length which is over 8 characters. 2)Even if 8 character ids are possible and Hussie spent a shit load of time uploading a video over and over again trying to get one, youtube ids have characters that aren't found in captchalogue codes (underscores and hyphens), which means that even if Hussie did somehow get a youtube video with an 8 character id there is no guarantee that it will even be one that works as a captchalogue code. :Also not a reason it is impossible but... captchalogue codes also use exclamation marks and question marks, question marks can't be used in youtube ids because in urls question marks serve as query strings and while exclamation marks can be used in urls, I have never seen them used in youtube ids, probably due to issues having exclamation marks in urls causes. This means that a huge number of captchalogue codes cannot be youtube ids either. - The Light6 (talk) 04:49, May 24, 2013 (UTC) Template 2: Electric Boogaloo I've done some hardcore markup today and, without wishing to blow my own trumpet too much, I AM A FREAKING LEGEND. Don't just take my word for it, either: :14:45 Am I or am I not a legend :14:47 Yes you are So yeah. Bringing my second sandbox back to the table because I've made it awesome. Go ahead, edit, change the captcha code in the "|code=" field near the top of the page, and preview it. Marvel at the fact that the punched card automatically updates to reflect the captcha! I'm sure we can use this magnificent new piece of work in a redesign of this article :3 :Much applause! That is incredible. (does not even want to look at the code for fear of feeling insignificant...) I think the grist icons need to be smaller, however. Other than that, it looks great! Congrats. Since I am all fucked up by jet lag, I will probably make a sandbox of the upd8d page soon. 16:46, July 12, 2014 (UTC) ::The code is actually surprisingly simple. The key thing is ,* which is used to break the captcha up. It then uses a statement to turn the captcha into its binary equivalent, and then there is a whole bunch of rearrangement using more s to get it going top to bottom. Then I just used an to convert the zeroes into fives and ones into zeroes, which are then used in the wiki's colour template to get light grey and black for the cell borders. Nothing terribly complicated, just looks really nasty if you don't know what it's all doing. But then, that's always the way with markup, huh? :P ::The one thing I'm not keen on is that it's currently three consecutively transcluded templates – the main template for the final table, which transcludes the binary output of the second template, which strings together the binary by transcluding eight instances of the first template, which is the one that converts the captcha. They could all be merged but it'd be hellish to pick through the resulting mass of code, so I think it's best left as it is :::Made a sandbox with this code. After I made Rose's Journals, though, it started complaining about excess nodes. I don't know what that means, but it just means that the code is very 8roken. Just letting you know. 18:51, July 12, 2014 (UTC) ::::Hmm. Might have known that would happen. It's not a limit I strictly understand, so I'm not sure whether making it all into a single template would work or not. Very roughly speaking, the problem is that it's hitting a cap on the page's ability to parse its markup. Which isn't totally surprising given it's having to parse a whole bunch of string functions (sub), which in turn are parsed inside a transclusion which is then subjected to more subs, and then that's parsed inside an expr... bleh. ::::We can, however, substitute the templates (that is, the punched cards, leaving the Sandbox2 thing as a full template). That fixes the code in place, but this is actually one of those rare cases where that's perfectly fine – the captchas aren't going to change for a given item. The only concern is whether we'd want to change the template itself, which – beyond precise details like how big the thing is – I also don't see much concern over. We should be able to salvage this :::::The exact issue in question is the preprocessor node count. From what I am reading there the issue likely isn't with there being too many #sub or #expr parsers (although they probably part of it), the real problem appears to be the #switch parser which is used as both part of the color template and part of the "captcha to binary" of the template. If I am reading this correctly: "For the expansion of #switch every checked condition adds 2 to the count." Than the "captcha to binary" each time is it run is adding 128 to the count, and each captcha code in turn runs that 8 tines resulting in a count of 1024, and based off Ylimegirl's sandbox the count for it is at 21504 when it finally reaches the limit. However, that is just the "captcha to binary" part, there is still the color template which is still run 48 times for each code and has way, way more fields. It seems the #switch parser even caused problems for Wikipedia less than 2 years ago. My recommendation here is to try and cut out the color template, and instead try to make the combination of #sub and #expr input the #000000 and #535353 hexcodes directly. :::::Like I said, I could be misinterpreting what Wikipedia is saying, at the very least is could be easy enough to test by creating a replacement color template which only has those two hexcode options and replacing the color template what that and seeing if it makes an impact. - The Light6 (talk) 04:19, July 13, 2014 (UTC) :::::Tried playing with it a bit, when changing to a simpler switch code it did result in the errors starting after the Ahab's Crosshairs card was rendered, so a bit of success, except for some reason the simpler colour template decided it wasn't going to work and rendered and the squares black. I don't know what I did to stuff that up but at least it seems I was on the right track. - The Light6 (talk) 04:52, July 13, 2014 (UTC) ::::::Well, if we don't want to use the colour template, we can just put a conditional in. Honestly, that's probably simpler than the expr nonsense – I originally didn't use a conditional because my conceptualisation of the structure rendered the colour template the better option, but in practice that ends up rather bulkier than necessary (something I should have realised when I ended up having to put in the "1-" to invert it!) ::::::EDIT: A bit of success. Same results as Light's test, but with the colour problem fixed. I suspect conditionals aren't really any cheaper than switches on the node count. If only we could remove the switches from the binary conversion... but we can't. Even if some obscure conversion function exists, it doubtless uses ASCII, which as discussed in an above section, is not what captcha binary uses :::::::OK so I was thinking about it and I think I came up with a way to not do the "captcha to binary" conversion using switches, sort of, except it is kind of a nasty solution which isn't easy to test. :::::::So as the template is it basically something like | }} → binary output, correct? :::::::And then the binary outputs are run through two other templates to generate the card, the first we'll call "generator 1". :::::::Now it gets nasty; we get rid of the "C to B" template and instead give "generator 1" a bunch of subpages; "generator 1/0", "generator 1/1", "generator 1/2", etc. And each of those subpages in turn specifies the binary value so we replace | }} with / }}}}}. :::::::So this would require not only require making 38 64 new subpages to replace a single template, but also that "Generator 1" have its code be readjusted to do this. Like I said it is nasty and even when it is done we still don't eliminate the switches, because captchas are case sensitive which means that the 26 letter subpages of Generator 1 will still require switches just to give different values for upper and lower case. However; this might not be a loss either; during my testing which led to SN to improve the template it seems that smaller switches may be cheaper, in which case having 26 small letter switches may still be better for the node count than having one single large switch. I mean, I could be wrong about the smaller switches being cheaper but at the very least it shouldn't be more expensive. :::::::So yeah that's all I have; a nasty, inelegant, possible solution. - The Light6 (talk) 01:26, July 14, 2014 (UTC) :::::::EDIT: OK it seems I overlooked that subpages can start with lowercase letters, unlike normal pages, it is entirely possible to give uppercase and lowercase letters their own subpage. - The Light6 (talk) 03:27, July 14, 2014 (UTC) :::::::Update: I made a copy of the template myself with my proposed work-around, and it works. I also decided to test how much more the page could take before it would break again; the current draft of the page uses 28 instances of the template, the page needs needs more than 117 instances before it breaks. :::::::Also on the limit itself: It isn't inherent in the system but a enforced limit to manage the load on the servers, so Wikia can increase or decrease it in the future depending on things like their average server strain, how much their servers can take, how much their servers improve, etc. So if Wikia ever increases the limit (which is currently a preprocessor node count of 300000) then we might be able to use SN's original version with the #switch parser. For the record SN's generator has a count of 8178/300000, while mine has 2524/300000. While that makes it look like we need Wikia to triple the limit, that is not the case. Ylimegirl's version of the page only just goes over the current limit with 300328/300000, so we only need a tiny increase to use the page as is; but still limit any hypothetical future expansion. My version of the page with the cheaper template is only 71684/300000, hence why it can support another 89 instances of the template on top of what it already has. Getting that level of freedom with the #switch template would require Wikia to quadruple their limit. - The Light6 (talk) 12:22, July 14, 2014 (UTC) ::::::::Just to add to this, :::::::::12:13 So the question now is :::::::::12:13 Is it worth 64 subpages :::::::::12:13 I mean really I suppose the answer is "Why not?" :::::::::12:14 There's nothing really wrong with that many pages, no matter how much it feels wrong :::::::::12:14 If that's what it takes for it to work, then it's justified ::::::::I really feel like there ought to be an easier way to do this than a ton of subpages. Though I suppose I invented the easier way already, and it just hits the preprocessor issue. So I dunno. I'm pretty happy to have this implemented at least until a hypothetical more elegant option presents itself. I may pitch it to the FFWiki's resident coding mastah and see if he knows anything useful :← So, TL6 and I were discussing the exact way in which switch statements work, and I had a moment of inspiration. I reordered the switch statement in my template by how common each character is in known captchas. This helps because switches use up node count until they hit the case they're matching, so moving the more frequently matched ones to the top optimises the efficiency of the switch. And it worked! But of course it messes up by hitting the node limit on the very last captcha on the page. Talk about frustrating! So, long story short, my template just barely literally cannot succeed. We're back to looking at alternative methods : /